Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But if capacity is only 25k, that's a crazy amount of "renovating." They'd basically have to more than triple the capacity (can't see less than 80k, really). That just doesn't make sense.

I'll never tell....

Mwhaaahahahaha.....

i know it's a long shot. But it could be possible to renovate the stadium. And if the soccer team got big crowds, maybe it would persuade the Giants or Jets to consider moving there as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

MLS plans to fund the 300 million stadium privately. If the olympics are in NYC then the USOC will have to pay for the renovations, but that's still much less money then building a whole new stadium.

They thought about doing that in London with a dedicated football stadium and the only intelligent solution was to demolish the entire stadium and build an entirely different one taking advantage of the surrounding infrastructure.

It proved a non-starter as an option

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's being disingenuous & you know it. Madrid hasn't taken the prize either. And yet you're also on here trying to sell a refrigerator to Eskimos by touting the silly notion of Minneapolis.

Remind me again how your precious Chicago did in the last competion? Oh yeah, that's right. "The city of...Chicago, having received the least number of votes, will not participate in the next round." :P :P :P

They're still bickering as to how a proposed new Vikings stadium is going to be paid for,

Long decided. Stay on top of the news before you quote it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the Minne gnat is buzzing around here again.

Yeah, & had your "darling" Minneapolis been a candidate in that particular race, they would've gotten ZERO votes, considering no one really cares, other than u & some other lost person on here over middling Minneapolis.

Even NYC got 16/19 votes in the first two rounds for 2012 before they were eliminated. Doesn't make New York any less of a city bcuz of that. So what's your point really, besides being frustrated that the far majority of people on here don't hold Minnespolis on some Olympic worthy pedestal.

But once again, you FAIL to say how "wonderful" Minne would make such a "great" host. Instead you attack other cities without merit & say nothing meaningful to promote your town. And no, saying how Minne "could" host is not compelling enough.

And so after all the bickering, you guys finally figured out about the stadium. Good for you. So who'd flip the bill for the added infrastructure that would be needed. And an Olympic Park. How long would plans like that if merely one piece of the puzzle took so long to figure out. Please, enlighten! :-P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the Minne gnat is buzzing around here again.

Yeah, & had your "darling" Minneapolis been a candidate in that particular race, they would've gotten ZERO votes, considering no one really cares, other than u & some other lost person on here over middling Minneapolis.

Even NYC got 16/19 votes in the first two rounds for 2012 before they were eliminated. Doesn't make New York any less of a city bcuz of that. So what's your point really, besides being frustrated that the far majority of people on here don't hold Minnespolis on some Olympic worthy pedestal.

But once again, you FAIL to say how "wonderful" Minne would make such a "great" host. Instead you attack other cities without merit & say nothing meaningful to promote your town. And no, saying how Minne "could" host is not compelling enough.

And so after all the bickering, you guys finally figured out about the stadium. Good for you. So who'd flip the bill for the added infrastructure that would be needed. And an Olympic Park. How long would plans like that if merely one piece of the puzzle took so long to figure out. Please, enlighten! :-P

Sorry but what evidence do you have that Minneapolis would have gotten zero votes?

The Vikings deal had zero to do with the cost. Wilf wanted to build a stadium and entire residential complex at Arden Hills ... Ramsey Country were falling over themselves to pay for the infrastructure, the City of Minneapolis were concerned about losing revenue from an out of town Vikings, Wilf wanted to pay less if the downtown site was used. Eventually negotiation sorted it out.

And you clearly don't read other people's posts as you'd have read that a lot of the infrastructure is already been built and there is a potential for the Olympic Village which again has all the infrastructure in place.

ford.jpg

I don't see any suggestions about where a New York Olympic Village would go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet you keep promoting the likes of San Francisco and also Chicago and NY who the IOC put over the knee and spanked their bottoms when it came to consider those bids.

The fact you quote Dublin, Canberra, Zurich makes me wonder if you have ever been outside of the USA when it comes to consider Olympic cities.

:lol::lol: Athens, Quake, FYI, SIr Rols...shud I even bother responding to this one? :blink:

Duluth-Minnetonka ALL THE WAY!!

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet you keep promoting the likes of San Francisco and also Chicago and NY who the IOC put over the knee and spanked their bottoms when it came to consider those bids.

But it's bit disingenuous to keep trying to dismiss NYC and Chicago simply because they've both lost bids. By that reckoning, Rio should never have had the temerity to try again - especially as they couldn't even make the short list the round before - Beijing would have been fatally handicapped by losing 2000, and Athens would have been "under no consideration" after being humiliated by the IOC for 1996. Not to mention NONE of the surviving 2020 bidders have any business being under consideration.

If anything, the experience of recent cycles would rather be that perseverance can and does pay off.

It's all very well to try and posit some more unusual or marginal contenders - fair enough, we all like a bit of variety. But it seems that you, like other recent posters such as BlackSheep or Kernowboy, are quick to blithely dismiss potential bid cities that past experience would indicate that many people, including the USOC, would consider heavyweight shots, but then get upset when others dismiss your long shot contenders.

You seem to know a lot, or at least are good at researching, venue plans. That's valuable input here. But venue plans are not the be-all and end-all - they might get you onto a candidate list, but it takes a lot more to then swing sympathy and enthusiasm from the majority of some 100-odd IOC members.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but what evidence do you have that Minneapolis would have gotten zero votes?

The Vikings deal had zero to do with the cost. Wilf wanted to build a stadium and entire residential complex at Arden Hills ... Ramsey Country were falling over themselves to pay for the infrastructure, the City of Minneapolis were concerned about losing revenue from an out of town Vikings, Wilf wanted to pay less if the downtown site was used. Eventually negotiation sorted it out.

And you clearly don't read other people's posts as you'd have read that a lot of the infrastructure is already been built and there is a potential for the Olympic Village which again has all the infrastructure in place.

ford.jpg

I don't see any suggestions about where a New York Olympic Village would go.

There are many places where the village could go. NYC has a lot of space, people just think of Manhattan when there are 4 other boroughs. You think the MSP would be able to host the olympics, and maybe they will be, but answer this question:

Why in the Blue Hell would the USOC pick MSP over NYC?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, I missed some fun here while I was away from the site for a day. Let's tackle a few of these...

I have a confession to make:

Quaker and I are the same person. Yes, it's true. I've been staging phony spats with myself to keep you all off the scent, but I feel it's time to finally drop the charade.

Kidding, of course. Peace, Quaker.

I actually have an Athens 2004 T-shirt that I still wear pretty often. So maybe it's possible. Of course, we're here a little too often around the same time for that to be possible.

I'm not touting any silly notion. As mentioned I simply think that there are people dismissing MSP without offering any alternative why they think another city could offer any more.

We're dismissing Minneapolis because we don't see a scenario where they would be able to offer up the winning bid. Even if the big boys like NYC and Chicago and LA all decide not to bid and Minneapolis is the best of the rest, it doesn't mean the USOC is going to offer them up. There are at least a half dozen cities (I'm being generously low with that figure because it's probably a lot more) that can offer more. You're talking about bidding against the likes of Paris and Istanbul and Tokyo and Durban/Cape Town and lots of other cities that can make a compelling case. Even if Minneapolis offers the best chance for a win for the USOC, if they don't think they can compete with the international crowd, the USOC is probably going to tell the city to save their money and sit it out. International reputation is going to count for a lot and unless Minneapolis offers up the best technical bid that's ever been presented, a lesser bid from a city like Chicago or San Francisco is probably going to top Minneapolis. And that's not a knock on MSP.. it's more a reflection of the current state of affairs with the IOC and that's what makes a Minneapolis Olympics all but impossible.

Oh yea, and if you're going to rip Chicago and NYC because they lost, should we remind you (as baron already has) that Minneapolis was going for the USOC nomination in 1996 (a battle of lightweights compared to what 2012 and 2016) and LOST. If they couldn't beat Atlanta whose biggest trump card was Coca-Cola, do you really think they'll be competitive when the field is that much stronger?

Yet you keep promoting the likes of San Francisco and also Chicago and NY who the IOC put over the knee and spanked their bottoms when it came to consider those bids.

The fact you quote Dublin, Canberra, Zurich makes me wonder if you have ever been outside of the USA when it comes to consider Olympic cities.

And yet you're the expert on such things? As much as I've ripped baron in here for some things (especially when it comes to all things Sac-Tah-Reno), his knowledge of Olympic history could probably put the rest of us to shame. Look at the last handful of cities to have (or plan to) hosted the Olympics. All capitals and/or the most prominent city in the country with the exception of Rio. All of the 2020 short-list candidates fall into the same category and look at the 2 cities the IOC rejected. You can't tell me with a straight face that after 2 big name cities like NYC and Chicago that the IOC is going to get offered Minneapolis and say "that's what we're looking for." Those losses were matters of circumstance, just like Atlanta's win in 1996. Besides, how many cities out there have lost only to come back and win? Most notably Rio who failed to make the 2012 shortlst. Or any of the 2020 winners, all of which have finished 3rd or lower at least once in recent memory.

Not every city out there is destined to host an Olympics. Many cities could handle it, but the IOC still has to choose them out of a competition that it takes millions of dollars just to take part in. And I think the USOC seems to have wised up and taken the stance not to throw a city out there in every cycle. I'll stand by my assertion.. if Minneapolis is the most appealing city in the United States for a 2024 Olympics, I sincerely doubt we will see a bid.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have to say that Crusader's tone is starting to remind me a bit of a certain "boy" and a certain "sheep" -- both of whom have departed our little community. Same attitude, same writing style, same focus on venue details, same interest in the same threads.... Curiouser and curiouser.....

Not to mention their "undying love" for trifling MSP, lol. And that icon on their current handle is the same one that "k-boy" used when he was on here. Go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but what evidence do you have that Minneapolis would have gotten zero votes?

The Vikings deal had zero to do with the cost. Wilf wanted to build a stadium and entire residential complex at Arden Hills ... Ramsey Country were falling over themselves to pay for the infrastructure, the City of Minneapolis were concerned about losing revenue from an out of town Vikings, Wilf wanted to pay less if the downtown site was used. Eventually negotiation sorted it out.

The point wasn't whether Minneapolis would've gotten zero votes or not. It was about that really NO American city was going to get the 2016 Games, regardless. The IOC had long made up their mind. But that annoying, antagonizing poster comes on here to mock the 18 votes that Chicago received, yet somehow they foolishly & naively think that Minneapolis, of all the fricken places, would somehow in their wildest dreams walk away with the prize? Please.

And okay, so a one BILLION dollar stadium had "zero" to do with cost. Yeah, okay, whatever. Tell that to the Minnesota taxpayers that R going to have to shell out for their share of the deal.

Maybe they'll pull a Las Vegas and bid anyway

I don't think even MSP is that foolish. Besides, there's not one shread of interest coming from there anyway. So all this Minne rhetoric, for the most part, is moot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point wasn't whether Minneapolis would've gotten zero votes or not. It was about that really NO American city was going to get the 2016 Games, regardless. The IOC had long made up their mind. But that annoying, antagonizing poster comes on here to mock the 18 votes that Chicago received, yet somehow they foolishly & naively think that Minneapolis, of all the fricken places, would somehow in their wildest dreams walk away with the prize? Please.

And okay, so a one BILLION dollar stadium had "zero" to do with cost. Yeah, okay, whatever. Tell that to the Minnesota taxpayers that R going to have to shell out for their share of the deal.

I don't think even MSP is that foolish. Besides, there's not one shread of interest coming from there anyway. So all this Minne rhetoric, for the most part, is moot.

I know. But I could see a minor city doing that if the USOC doesn't support their bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...